SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1923 Supreme(Mad) 341

C TROTTER
The Secretary Board Of Revenue, – Appellant
Versus
R. M. A. R. R. M. Arunachalam – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Walter Salis Schwabe, K.C., C.J.

1. The assessee is a Nattukottai Chetty carrying on business in Madras and elsewhere as banker and money-lender. In the year of assessment, he remitted from Madras sums aggregating over 4 lakhs of rupees to Penang, such sums being invested there in Straits Settlements dollars, and ultimately reconverted into rupees and remitted back to Madras. The remittances were made on eight occasions within a period of four months in 1919 and the retransfer to Madras was on thirteen occasions covering a period of four months from the end of 1920 to the beginning of 1921. Owing to the fluctuations in exchange, which varied between 83 and 175 rupees per 100 dollars, the assessee made a profit of a considerable amount on the transactions. He has been assessed to income tax on that profit, and the question referred to this Court is whether he has been correctly assessed. Under Section 51(1) of the Income Tax Act which was then to force, any question which has arisen with reference to the interpretation of any of the provisions of this Act may be referred to the High Court. This action probably gives wider powers than Section 66 of the Indian Income Tax Act of





Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top